State Farm Wins 17% Emergency Rate Hike for Homes After LA Fires
(Bloomberg) -- State Farm has been approved for an emergency 17% rate increase on homeowner insurance policies in California, part of an effort to shore up the state's largest insurer after the devastating wildfires in the Los Angeles area.
As Coastline Erodes, One California City Considers 'Retreat Now'
A New Central Park Amenity, Tailored to Its East Harlem Neighbors
What's Behind the Rise in Serious Injuries on New York City's Streets?
Lawsuit Challenges Trump Administration Policy on Migrant Children
The hike, which takes effect in June, also allows a 15% boost for condo coverage, according to Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara. It follows a three-day hearing in April, where an administrative law judge found that the adjustment balanced consumer protections with the company's financial stability. The judge's proposed order was adopted by Lara on Tuesday.
'Let me be clear: We are in a statewide insurance crisis affecting millions of Californians. Taking this on requires tough decisions,' Lara said in a statement.
As a condition of the increase, regulators ordered the insurer to bring in a $400 million cash infusion from its parent company and barred it from issuing mass non-renewals through the end of the year. State Farm has struggled with wildfire-related pressure and its credit rating was downgraded this week by S&P Global Ratings, which cited the January wildfires and ongoing climate risks.
The Palisades Fire and the Eaton Fire in nearby Altadena in January killed 30 people and destroyed 16,000 structures, causing as much as $131 billion in economic losses.
State Farm had initially sought a 22% hike but agreed to scale back the request during last month's hearing. A University of California at Los Angeles analysis estimates the company could face $7.6 billion in claims from the Palisades and Eaton fires, which caused $45 billion in insured losses statewide.
Consumer Watchdog, a nonprofit advocacy group, criticized the decision to allow the rate increase, arguing that State Farm didn't provide enough evidence to justify charging higher premiums under Proposition 103, the state law governing insurance pricing.
'Today's decision that would make consumers pay now but allow State Farm to wait months before having to show its math is a great disappointment for consumers,' said Consumer Watchdog Executive Director Carmen Balber.
Cartoon Network's Last Gasp
Trump Has Already Ruined Christmas
The Recession Chatter Is Getting Louder. Watch These Metrics
US Border Towns Are Being Ravaged by Canada's Furious Boycott
Maybe AI Slop Is Killing the Internet, After All
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
18 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. appeals court rules
A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The Federal Circuit said the litigation raised issues of "exceptional importance" warranting the court to take the rare step of having the 11-member court hear the appeal, rather than have it go before a three-judge panel first. It scheduled arguments for July 31. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed.
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's most sweeping tariffs can remain in place for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump's heftiest tariffs cleared a court hurdle for now, after a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that they could take effect while legal challenges play out. The decision came after the Trump administration appealed the Court of International Trade's ruling finding the president exceeded his authority to impose country-wide tariffs claiming a national emergency. 'Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having considered the traditional stay factors… the court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances,' according to the ruling. The stay is pending the course of the appeal, the court wrote, adding that the case will be heard on a sped-up basis by the full panel of judges at the court. 'The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,' the order said. The appeals court ruling, however, has no bearing on the sector-wide tariffs Trump previously enacted, including those on aluminum, steel, cars and car parts. That's because he imposed those levies under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions. Section 232 gives a president significant power to levy tariffs on specific sectors if they believe there is a national security threat risk. This is a developing story and will be updated.
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's most sweeping tariffs can remain in place for now, appeals court rules
President Donald Trump's heftiest tariffs cleared a court hurdle for now, after a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that they could take effect while legal challenges play out. The decision came after the Trump administration appealed the Court of International Trade's ruling finding the president exceeded his authority to impose country-wide tariffs claiming a national emergency. 'Both sides have made substantial arguments on the merits. Having considered the traditional stay factors… the court concludes a stay is warranted under the circumstances,' according to the ruling. The stay is pending the course of the appeal, the court wrote, adding that the case will be heard on a sped-up basis by the full panel of judges at the court. 'The court also concludes that these cases present issues of exceptional importance warranting expedited en banc consideration of the merits in the first instance,' the order said. The appeals court ruling, however, has no bearing on the sector-wide tariffs Trump previously enacted, including those on aluminum, steel, cars and car parts. That's because he imposed those levies under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act – a different law than the one Trump cited for his broader trade actions. Section 232 gives a president significant power to levy tariffs on specific sectors if they believe there is a national security threat risk. This is a developing story and will be updated.
